Tag Archives: NDAA

Post navigation

It was shocking when President George W. Bush stated “you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists.”Senior White House Advisor, Valerie Jarrett, has taken these words to a significantly more dramatic level when she stated that “there will be hell to pay” for Obama’s critics in the second term.

Iranian-born Communist sympathizer Valerie Jarrett and Barack Obama’s Senior White House Adviser is strongly rumored, from multiple sources, that just prior to the recent general election, to have issued a clear threat against the rank and file members of the American public who do not support Pres. Obama. Allegedly Jarrett said “After we win this election, it is payback time. For those who supported us, there will be rewards, for the ones who opposed us, they will get what they deserve. There will be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. With no election to worry about, we have two judges ready to go.”

Although allegations against Jarrett for having said the statements are sourced in multiple outlets, I can find no audio recording of the statements by Jarrett. Nor, can I locate an actual official transcript for these alleged threats against Americans who would dare not to support the President. However, in the theater of “actions speak louder than words,” it is highly likely that Jarrett did indeed utter these threats, given her extreme Communist leanings and her very un-American past.

Valerie Jarrett comes from a family which intermarried with the Bill Ayers family. Yes, that would be the Weathermen Underground terrorist leader, Bill Ayers. That would be the same Bill Ayers who told FBI informant, Larry Grathwohl, “that when we take over the United States, and that we will forcibly detain 50 million Americans in re-education camps in which they will probably have to murder 25 million American citizens who cannot be re-educated.” Grathwohl repeated the Ayers statement on the August 18th edition of The Common Sense Show. This is the same Valerie Jarrett family which was also involved with Frank Davis the former head of the Communist Party in the United States. This is the same Frank Davis who Joel Gilbert exposed as Obama’s real father. Additionally, the Jarrett family is also affiliated with other so-called “Red Diaper Babies” in which this young group of intellectual elites called for a communist takeover of the United States in the late 1960′s and early 1970′s. For those that know their history, you will remember that the same people engage in terrorist acts involving the detonation of explosive devices in which people died, including a San Francisco police officer. Bill Ayers wife, Bernardine Dorne served a prison term for her participation with this group. And we also know, that Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorne, close friends of Jarrett to this day, funded President Obama’s Harvard education. These facts have led many to believe that Valerie Jarrett is making the major decisions in the White House.

Should President Obama (alongside Lindsay Graham and John McCain) be wearing an orange jumpsuit?

Welcome to the beautiful and surreal reality of life under American corporatism, under a Congress that churns out thousands and thousands of pages of (often contradictory) legislation a year.

If providing material assistance to al-Qaeda is illegal under the National Defence Authorization Act (2012), and Obama and Congress are sending $25 million of aid to al-Qaeda-affiliated Syrian opposition, aren’t Congress and President Obama violating their own law? Should Obama (or at least the Justice Department) not be using “all necessary and appropriate force” including “the power to indefinitely detain” to prevent Obama and Congress from assisting al-Qaeda? Did anyone in Congress or the Obama administration even bother to read the law that they were signing? Do Federal laws no longer apply to lawmakers?

The only question left from this abrupt and absurd turnaround — from funding bin Laden’s mujahideen thirty years ago, to ten years ago declaring war on al-Qaeda, to today sending them material assistance — would appear to be whether or not Obama will pull a 1984 and claim that “we have always been at war with Eurasia“.

On April 5, the Defense Department quietly sent a report to Congress indicating how it intends to implement a new law requiring lawyers and judges for detainees held in long-term U.S. military custody. As expected, DoD largely wrote the new rights out of existence, ensuring they’d be accorded to few, if any, detainees. What’s more, it severely limited the scope of judicial review even that small number will receive.

Originally intended to apply to the prisoners held by the United States at the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, Section 1024 of the National Defense Authorization Act is now more likely to apply to some future category of indefinite detainees held by the U.S. government. And therein lies the problem.

Just three months after President Obama signed the NDAA in December, the United States negotiated with Afghanistan to transfer most of the 3,200 detainees imprisoned at the Detention Facility in Parwan, as the U.S.-run prison at Bagram is called, to Afghan custody within six months. That transfer agreement doesn’t mention anything about what sort of review those detainees will get from the Afghan authorities — or, for that matter, whether they’ll get any sort of hearing at all. Because there isn’t an indefinite detention law in Afghanistan spelling out the grounds for detention or any entitlement for due process, those prisoners could end up stuck in an Afghan prison for many more years without charge or trial.

The new Defense Department regulations obviously won’t apply to them. But they may apply to some of the 50 non-Afghan detainees who remain at the U.S.-run prison, and to any new suspected insurgents the U.S. military may capture in the future.

That’s the scary part. DoD has just taken the opportunity to ensure that if the administration decides its “war on al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces” continues after the withdrawal of troops in Afghanistan, it won’t have to provide anyone it captures outside the United States a meaningful review of the grounds of their detention for at least three years. Even then, the military commander in charge retains the ultimate authority to decide whether the detainee is dangerous and must remain imprisoned.

Here’s how it works. According to the new regulations:

The combatant commander with responsibility for the theater of operations in which the unprivileged enemy belligerent is detained will ensure that a determination by the DRB or analogous review that the 1024(b) process is applicable is made as soon as practicable but not later than 18 months after the detainee is captured by, or transferred to the custody and control of, the Department of Defense. Additionally, the combatant commander will ensure that a Section 1024(b) review is conducted as soon as practicable after such a determination is made, but not later than 18 months after such a determination is made.

Eighteen months plus 18 months equals three years. So any newly captured suspect is not entitled to a hearing by a military judge and represented by military defense counsel until three years after his initial detention.

After deliberately lobbying for the inclusion of provisions that summon Americans to indefinite detention without trial or due process, Liar-in-Chief Barack Obama has issued a meaningless Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) that supposedly now exempts Americans from the egregious and unconstitutional provisions of his National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) during the 2012 fiscal year.

InfoWars’ Paul Joseph Watson reports that the White House has issued a new “Fact Sheet” on this directive outlining how Section 1022 of the NDAA, which deals with the indefinite detention of suspected “terrorists” by the U.S. military, will not necessarily apply to “U.S. lawful permanent residents” who are arrested in the U.S. under certain circumstances.

But this PPD is not law and it is not permanent, as it only expresses the procedures that are to take place during 2012. It also states that the procedures “do not apply to any individuals held in the custody of the Department of Defense, state and local law enforcement agencies acting under their authorities, or a foreign government,” which basically asserts that the illegal detention provisions of the NDAA still do apply to all Americans.

This political stunt is likely just an attempt to quell public outcry against the administration’s blatant betrayal of the U.S. Constitution. But the reality of the matter is that it really does nothing to reverse the NDAA’s authoritarian provisions concerning the illegal arrest and detention of Americans without due process.

Since Obama’s PPD only applies to 2012, the next occupier of the White House will have full reign to utilize the arsenal of government control tactics contained in the NDAA. And since Obama’s recent PPD “amendment” was birthed out of an apparent whim to begin with, it could just as easily be revoked should Obama suddenly change his mind again.

It is important to note that former Republican presidential candidate John McCain of Arizona, as well as Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) have all indicated their opposition to the PPD. Each of these traitors openly supports the illegal and indefinite detention of Americans deemed to be potential “terrorists,” and are working to have the PPD revoked.

So regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat, these political puppets are all just posturing themselves in the social eye while working towards the same tyrannical end. Because no matter how you look at it, many of those on both sides of the aisle are in full support of the NDAA, the extension of the unconstitutional USA Patriot Act, which will further enslave Americans under the guise of fighting terrorism.

The US government has developed massive surveillance capabilities to monitor communications, travel and financial transactions in this country and abroad. But, even the government cannot monitor everything Americans do—not directly, anyway. Thus, it created the Communities Against Terrorism (CAT) program to enlist your friendly local businesses as spies for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

The CAT program, funded by the State and Local Anti-Terrorism Training program (SLATT) is described as a “tool to engage members of the local community in the fight against terrorism.” The program interprets “local community” to mean businesses, and only registered businesses may access the program’s flyers listing “potential indicators” of terrorist activity.

Each flyer is designed for a particular kind of business. For example, this list was prepared for owners of internet cafes. Unquestionably, someone planning a terrorist attack has engaged in one or more of the “suspicious” activities on that list. But so, too, have most of the estimated 289 million computer users in this country.

The government’s flyer designates people as suspicious if they “always pay cash” at an internet café. That’s a jaw-dropping assumption considering that we’re talking about businesses that sell $2 cups of joe, not $600 airline tickets. Good luck paying with a credit card for a purchase under $10.

Evidence that one has a “residential based internet provider” (such as Comcast or AOL) is another pretext for government snooping. If your home internet connection is unreliable, if you are on travel, or if you simply relish a good cup of coffee with your internet browsing, you run the risk of acquiring an FBI file. Trying to shield personal information on your computer screen from the prying eyes of others will mark you as a potential terrorist, also.

Like this:

“He will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law.”

These harsh words come courtesy of the executive director of the ACLU, formerly a supporter of the president but also just one of the many dissenters who have since have grown disillusioned with an administration tarnished by unfulfilled campaign promises and continuous constitutional violations.

When he signed the National Defense Authorization Act on New Year’s Eve, President Barack Obama said that he had his reservations over the controversial legislation that will allow for the indefinite detention of Americans.

Now some of the president’s pals are expressing their agreement with Obama’s own hesitation but say that the commander-in-chief should have thought harder before signing away the civil liberties of Americans.

Under the bill, which approves all defense spending for the 2012 fiscal year, certain provisions allow for the military detainment and torture of US citizens, indefinitely, essentially allowing for Guantanamo Bay-style prisons to be a real possibility for every American. As the act floated around Congress, an underground outrage erupted and activists attempted to keep the bill from leaving the House and the Senate, although a lack of media coverage largely left the matter hidden to the public. Despite this campaign, the legislation made it out of the Capitol Building and into the Oval Office last month, prompting advocates against the act to petition for the president to veto it.

Initially the Obama administration said the president’s advisers would recommend a veto, but later rescinded the threat. Senator Carl Levin eventually revealed that President Obama had insisted on adding the wording that has made NDAA such a target among activists who are frightened of the civil liberty-stripping capabilities.

One week after the president did ink the legislation, some of Obama’s old pals are saying they are in disbelief over how a former constitutional law professor could agree to such provisions that crush the law of the land.

“President Obama’s action … is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law, “

ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero says in a statement. Such a charge not only carries much clout because it comes courtesy of the head of such an integral and reputable advocacy group, but Romero himself was praising the president three years earlier after he won the 2008 election. Now that same administration is doing everything Romero thought it wouldn’t.

Many Americans were shocked when it was signed quietly by President Obama New Year’s eve for it gives the U.S. Military and other agencies in the government Egyptian military style powers of arrest and detention of Americans anywhere, anytime and for any reason.

The act also allows them to be indefinitely detained without access to an attorney or a trial by jury. Indefinite means they could be held for life.

Amendments to exclude American citizens were rejected by the Obama administration and senate vote.

Some say this is one of the worst pieces of legislation regarding the constitutional rights of Americans to ever be signed into law.

Organizers say the objective of the February demonstration is to force congressional representatives into repealing Section 1021 and 1022, which could lead to the indefinite military detention of Americans without due process of law.

The protest is not affiliated with any particular political or grassroots organizations and organizers say they are uniting as individuals who want to “stop this tyranny before it gets worse.”

On its website the group says, “Congress and President Obama have declared war on Americans. The last time America was declared a military zone President Roosevelt authorized the internment of Americans with Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942.

Senator Graham has said that America is part of the battlefield, and as such, Americans can be captured, interrogated, and killed with no due process.

NDAA 2012 repeals the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and declares our right to due process. No law shall supersede it. We have a right to our day in court with a jury of our peers.”

In the aftermath of the signing of the NDAA by the traitorous President Obama, some citizens remain completely hoodwinked by the language of the bill, running around the internet screaming that the law “does not apply to American citizens.”

This is, naturally, part of the side effect of having such a dumbed-down education system where people can’t even parse the English language anymore. If you read the bill and understand what it says, it clearly offers absolutely no protections of U.S. citizens. In fact, it affirms that Americans are subjected to indefinite detainment under “existing authorities.”

Let’s parse it intelligently, shall we?

First off, the offending section of the bill that used to be called 1031 was moved to 1021. Here is the title:

The question of the day is, does the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, nicknamed the Indefinite Detention Bill, actually call for the arrest and indefinite detention of American citizens on American soil? According to Devvy Kidd, it doesn’t:

I don’t seem to be able to find the text in either the final enrolled House or Senate bills that explicitly says U.S. citizens will be indefinitely detained without charge.

Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I have been reading bills from both the state houses and Congress going on two decades. In both bills (House & Senate), I found language that is plain and specific regarding U.S. citizens. In the original bill (S. 1867) here is the section on page 361 which deals with detainees and U.S. citizens:

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY continues over to page 362:

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS. The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

Unless I’m missing something, that subprovision says detention by military does not apply to U.S. citizens. Words have meaning in the law and that sentence appears to be easily read. That language remains in the final bill (Enrolled):

Again, page 428 begins section 1032, but here is page 430:

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.-

10 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.-The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

Now over to the House. The full text of the bill passed by the House (Enrolled Bill):

H.R.1540 – National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

Page 265:

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(e) AUTHORITIES.-Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

At this link is the Congressional Record for December 12, 2011, beginning on page H8356; the day after the final vote on House bill 1540. Scroll down to page 81 (H8436) on your screen and see this under Sec. 1022:

SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN ALQAEDA TERRORISTS.

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.-

1. UNITED STATES CITIZENS.-The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

I agree. At first glance, it seems that there is a specific clause which eliminates American citizens from the provisions of the bill. However, consider the following bill that Joe Lieberman and Charles Dent are trying to get through called the Enemy Expatriation Act:

S 1698 A bill to add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.

Bill Text:

A BILL

To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Enemy Expatriation Act’.

SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY.

(a) In General- Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) is amended–

(1) in subsection (a)–

(A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by striking ‘or’ at the end;

(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘; or’; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

‘(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘(c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.’.

Who can be deemed as “engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States? You tell me. In 2009, USA Today reported that the government’s “Terrorist Watch List” had no specific rules “for who goes on the list, [and] it’s too bloated to be effective, says Tim Sparapani, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union.” No specific rules for who goes on the list? What? Oh, okay, I get it. Suspicion. That’s all it takes. Boom, on the list you go.

(HOMELAND SECURITY NEWSWIRE) Now a single tip about a terror link will be enough for inclusion in the watch list for U.S. security officials, who have also evolved a quicker system to share the database of potential terrorists among screening agencies.

The master watch list of individuals with suspected links to terrorism is used to screen people seeking to obtain a visa, cross a U.S. border, or board a plane in or destined for the United States. Officials say they have made it easier to add individuals’ names to the watch list and improved the government’s ability to thwart terrorist attacks, the Washington Post reported. (Federal Jack)

So, who is immune from being labeled a potential terrorist? Only the guys at the top. The ones who are setting up the lists. The ones putting the labels on us. And just how far a leap would it take for this list to lead to accusations, expatriation and indefinite detention for American citizens on American soil?

I’m a RACIST for criticizing Obama. I’m a TERRORIST because I’m not afraid to stand up for what’s right. I’m a LIBERAL for supporting the Constitution. I’m a TROUBLEMAKER for asking unanswered questions. I’m a TRAITOR for blowing the whistle on my corrupt government. I’m a CONSPIRACY THEORIST for presenting documented facts. I’m a TROLL for uploading news, videos, quotes and U.S. atrocities. I’m ANTI-AMERICAN for supporting Constitutionalists. Yep, GUILTY! (Guido)

Connecting the Dots

Are you beginning to get the picture? The Indefinite Detention bill does not have to include a specific provision for indefinite detention of American citizens for it to happen. All that needs to happen is for the Enemy Expatriation Act to go through. Remember what Dirty Harry Reid did to get the Food Safety travesty passed? If not, I’ll remind you:

“Then, on the floor of the Senate in the late afternoon, early evening of Sunday, December 19, Senator Reid called the Recycling bill for a vote and there was no objection from the two other Senators who were on the floor. So by unanimous consent HR 2751 was passed. Then Senator Reid moved for reconsideration with the vote to be tabled. This was granted by the same unanimous consent because there was no other Senator on the floor. Then Senator Reid offered without objection amendment number 4890 which substituted S. 510 the Food Safety Bill for the Recycling Bill. Without objection, then the amendment was passed and the Food Safety Bill had been substituted for the Recycling Bill. Reid moved that the bill be read for the third time and asked for the question. Without objection, the bill passed, and the Food Safety Bill was on the way back to the House.” (Fred Kelly Grant)

If history is any indicator, should we expect the provisions of the Enemy Expatriation Act to end up in another bill, and passed by unanimous consent in a one person vote like dirty Harry Reid did? I wouldn’t doubt it for a minute. And if it does, how convenient that these expatriated American “terrorists” can then be subject to Indefinite Detention on American soil.

Tyranny is being implemented in increments, one step at a time, making it difficult to piece together at the time it is happening. One piece of legislation here, another there – links of a chain that when added together on down the road, form the entire unit.

As with everything, a closer look is needed. Add these two bills together – the National Defense Authorization Act and the Enemy Expatriation Act – and American citizens can be stripped of their citizenship, which allows them to fall under the indefinite detention clause. A two-part mix.